I agreeto Idea Combine retirement account systems and make them automatic
Voting is Disabled

-18 votes

I disagree

Rank3804

Idea#1072

This idea is active.
Legal & Policy Challenges »

Combine retirement account systems and make them automatic

Why Is This Idea Important?: Force people to save at least a bit for retirement and simplify the whole process.

Every employee in the country should automatically get set up with an IRA. Employers would be required to open an account if the new employee does not already have one. But if the employee does have one, the employer would direct money into that existing account.

A percentage of every employee's pay should automatically go into that IRA. From the first dollar we earn as teenagers, we should be forced to set aside a small percentage. We should have the option, like with a 401k, to say we want more to go into the account. The employer should have the option to match. And, like a traditional IRA, the employee should be able to put a certain amount of other money into it.

The key points: every employee must put at least, say, 2% of every paycheck into the account through their entire lives, and this is their one retirement account that they can use for everything. This would combine the IRA, 401(k), SIMPLE IRA, SEP IRA, etc.

If the employee wanted to have more than one IRA, they could. But their one account could also serve to hold money from all these different sources.

Maybe they would have two, one for pre-tax dollars and one for after-tax dollars (like a ROTH IRA).

This gives every employee a nest egg to watch grow. Easy options should be available (like in 401ks) and investments in things like "target funds" should be encouraged.

This is not meant to replace Social Security, it is meant to supplement it and to simplify the current dizzying array of IRA/retirement plan options and force everyone to do a bit to save.

Submitted by Peter Jackson 3 years ago

Vote Activity Show

(latest 20 votes)

Comments (8)

  1. Requiring participation and forcing everyone into the system will help no one. Freedom to choose and deregulation are much better options.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  2. What has this to do with open government?

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  3. One problem is the"I" in IRA. Exposing the individual to the market in this way (like asking individuals to negotiate alone with insurers in purchasing supplemental health insurance after retirement) imposes an undue burden on the individual

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  4. I'll vote this neither up or down. I don't think new ways to force people to part with their money will be very popular in America today. There will always be people barely hanging on who are pushed over the line by an increase of any kind. This will be opposed with the same vehemence a tax increase would be, or forced spending for medical coverage. Too many people cannot pay any more. There are those who CAN afford to pay, but the government generally refuses to touch them for fear of their influence.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  5. I don't believe you should force people, but saving should be automatic and people can opt out. Just as now not saving is automatic, and many don't save. Huge percentages go with whatever is automatically chosen for them, this nudges high percentages to save because it takes effort to opt out, but they still retain free choice.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  6. This suggestion is a good one with some major caveats. Francis S hits on part of this which is that you can't necessarily expect those that already below the property line to save anything. I think the goal here is to have retired people in our country that aren't starving or better yet that are retired. This needs to be carefully thought out as to not reward bad behavior by those who are not worthy of support.

    If you are working, then a mandatory 401K type plan is crucial. For those who don't work, I would say the government is on the hook and this has to be carefully factored into all equations. The one caveat needed for the 401K scenario is that the money has to be invested in only the safest investments (which may not exist currently).

    This is an extremely complex problem and the reason that European "pensioners" pay 60% of their income in taxes.

    We have to do something going forward. This suggestion is on the right track but, like Francis S, I can give it neither an up or down vote.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  7. Yes, we see how our financial giants can both piss away our 401K money and manage to extort $3 Trillion from Obama.s financial experts and the FED. I certainly am so stupid that I would want to give these thieves a guaranteed part of every paycheck going forward. For crying out loud, awaken and see the theft.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  8. We already do this in Soc. Sec. The only problem w/ that was that the Bush Admin. stole the trust fund to pay for an illegal war of aggression. The solution is Gore's "lock box" for the trust fund, which everyone is too ashamed to admit they shouldn't have been laughing at when he proposed it. Lacking it, when can expect every Administration going forward to piss it away for whatever grandiose black hole they favor--war, Wall Street, whatever.

    And I echo chenvertjd --what does this have to do w/ open gov't?

    3 years ago
    0
    0